FreeBSD 8.4 has been released. "The FreeBSD Release Engineering Team is pleased to announce the availability of FreeBSD 8.4-RELEASE. This is the fifth release from the 8-STABLE branch which improves on the functionality of FreeBSD 8.3 and introduces some new features. Some of the highlights: Gnome version 2.32.1, KDE version 4.10.1; feature flags 5000 version of the ZFS filesystem; support for all shipping LSI storage controllers." The full release notes detail all the changes since 8.3.

But it sure would be nice if one of these days the BSDs just merge back into one already.

Different goals, different purposes, different ways, and different project philosophies. It would be similarly complicated to expect "the Linux" to be established. There are three (major) BSD operating systems, but many more different Linux distributions (with the pro of choice vs. the contra of partial incompatibility). It's not really comparable, though.

On the other hand, FreeBSD could directly benefit from development on other BSDs which "offer more" (e. g., wireless drivers in OpenBSD or "mobility features" in NetBSD). It's still good to have the ability of choice, especially if features are similarly developed in different BSDs, so one doesn't have to sacrifice efficiency or cleanness of one system for the one feature of another...

Is that really true anymore? Once upon a time it was "OpenBSD security, NetBSD portability, FreeBSD..." But did NetBSD or FreeBSD ever not care about security? Do these differences in philosophy really exist anymore? Or have they simply got used to doing it their individual ways, and old habits die hard?

This may or may not be the place for this kind of discussion (though in my mind it beats debating the OSes for phones), but I really think this question is long overdue for the various factions.

It just seems to me when they talk about things like the "elegance" while perpetually struggling to keep up with hardware support and more practical matters, they've divided and conquered themselves. Can anybody honestly say there's enough difference between the 4 branches to warrant the dilution of manpower?

Considering the merging of the major BSD projects is like considering merging a sports car with a pick-up truck. They have different functions, different goals, different usage styles. Merging is not only not going to create a better product, it would make a much worse product.

Now I could see merging DragonflyBSD and FreeBSD back together. In fact, I believe FreeBSD is actively trying to import some features from Draongfly, like HammerFS. Those projects are likely to get closer over time, but NetBSD, OpenBSD and FreeBSD are quite different both practically and philosophically.

But in reality, how much different are they, and are they different enough to warrant completely separate types of BSD, as opposed to having different "flavors" of the same basic system? What does OpenBSD or NetBSD have anymore that so special it couldn't be merged into FreeBSD, for example?